How concealed is "concealed"

Discussions related to the various aspects of legal concealed carry and Ohio gun laws.

Moderators: Linda, NRAInstructor

Post Reply
45PocketPistol
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2015 9:41 pm

How concealed is "concealed"

Post by 45PocketPistol » Wed Feb 25, 2015 11:18 pm

How much of the gun must be concealed for it to be legally "concealed"? If you can see the very end of the grip, is it "open"? I've never heard anyone ask about this, but it seems to be an obvious question. I mean, if someone doesn't have a CHL, they could carry "barely-open", right? I think there would be a market for "barely-open" holsters.

color of law
Posts: 2722
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 10:45 am
Location: Too close to Cincinnati

Re: How concealed is "concealed"

Post by color of law » Wed Feb 25, 2015 11:57 pm

State v. Bruening, 2007-Ohio-6982
A weapon is concealed if it is situated so that ordinary observation would give no notice of its presence. State v. Bowman (1992), 79 Ohio App. 3d 407, 412, 607 N.E.2d 516; State v. Coker (1984), 15 Ohio App. 3d 97, 98, 472 N.E.2d 747.

State v. Port, 2006-Ohio-2783
For purposes of R.C. 2923.12, the test for determining “concealment” is set forth in State v. Pettit (1969), 20 Ohio App.2d 170, 173-74, 252 N.E.2d 325, as the following: a weapon is concealed if it is so situated as not to be discernable by ordinary observation by those near enough to see it if it were not concealed, who would come into contact with the possessor in the usual associations of life; but that absolute invisibility is not required, since ordinary observation does not extend to a search unusually careful, thorough or detailed, made because of suspicion that contraband which is not visible by ordinary observation may in actuality be present.

Furthermore, the Ninth District Court of Appeals found that a weapon need not be totally hidden from observation in order to render it concealed within the meaning of the statute. State v. Brandle (1996), 116 Ohio App.3d 753, 689 N.E.2d 94, citing State v. Coker (1984), 15 Ohio App.3d 97, 472 N.E.2d 747. In conclusion, it is not necessary to prove that the weapon was carried in such a manner or in such a location as to give absolutely no notice of its presence under any observation; rather, it is sufficient to prove that ordinary observation would give no notice of its presence. Coker, 15 Ohio App.3d at 98.

State v. Bowman (1992), 79 Ohio App. 3d 407, 412, 607 N.E.2d 516
In order to support a conviction of carrying a concealed weapon, it is not necessary to prove that the weapon was carried in such a manner or in such a location as to give absolutely no notice of its presence under any kind of ordinary observation; rather, it is sufficient to prove only that ordinary observation would give no notice of its presence.

State v. Coker (1984), 15 Ohio App. 3d 97, 98, 472 N.E.2d 747
It is not necessary to prove that the shotgun was carried in such manner or in such location as to give absolutely no notice of its presence under any kind of observation. Rather, it is sufficient to support a conviction of carrying a concealed weapon to prove only that ordinary observation would give no notice of its presence. This is a question of fact to be resolved by the trier of fact. There must be an evidentiary basis established by the proof upon which the jury could find that the weapon was concealed.

State v. Pettit (1969), 20 Ohio App.2d 170, 173-74, 252 N.E.2d 325
We think that a recognized test is that a weapon is concealed if it is so situated as not to be discernible by ordinary observation by those near enough to see it if it were not concealed, who would come into contact with the possessor in the usual associations of life; but that absolute invisibility is not required, since ordinary observation does not extend to a search unusually careful, thorough or detailed, made because of suspicion that contraband which is not visible by ordinary observation may in actuality be present. Shipley v. State, 243 Md. 262, 220 A. 2d 585.


Shipley v. State (1966) , 243 Md. 262, 220 A. 2d 585
By a recognized test a weapon is concealed if it is so situated as not to be discernible by ordinary observation by those near enough to see it if it were not concealed who would come into contact with the possessor in the usual associations of life, but absolute invisibility is not required; since ordinary observation does not extend to a search unusually careful, thorough or detailed, made because of suspicion that contraband which is not visible by ordinary observation may in actuality be present. 94 C.J.S. Weapons § 8 (e); 56 Am. Jur. Weapons and Firearms § 10, pp. 997-98; Annot., Concealed Weapon, 43 A.L.R.2d 492, 510-15; and see Kennedy v. State, (Neb.), 105 N.W.2d 710.


Kennedy v. State (1960), (Neb.), 105 N.W.2d 710 (Supreme Court of Nebraska)
[T]he courts generally hold, including our own, that absolute invisibility to other persons is not indispensable to concealment of a weapon on or about the person of a defendant, and that a weapon is so concealed when it is hidden from ordinary observation and is readily accessible on his person or in a motor vehicle operated by defendant.

User avatar
SMMAssociates
Site Admin
Posts: 6726
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2007 11:01 pm
Location: Youngstown OH

Re: How concealed is "concealed"

Post by SMMAssociates » Thu Feb 26, 2015 3:03 am

45PocketPistol:

Welcome Aboard!

There's a sticky at viewtopic.php?f=6&t=10097 that you should have a look at, but it's not mandatory. It's kinda sleep inducing, though :D....

I think the guys have covered the "concealed" issue. OH had a goofy "in plain sight" requirement for CHL holders when in a vehicle, but that went away. A gun which would get you locked up for carrying a gun illegally might not be visible enough to pass "in plain sight"....

Burned up a lot of electrons over that one....

Open carry doesn't seem to mind if a gun is holstered, or in a pocket where enough is visible to make it likely to be discerned as a weapon, but being inside a vehicle makes the whole thing concealed now.

(Making sense is not a requirement in OH law....)

The real point of Open Carry is that the gun is visible to anybody who happened to look at you, without reference to things like noting your right pants-leg is a little lower because of the weight of the gun :). An LEO is more likely to spot a gun than the average citizen, but the presumption appears to be that anybody should see it easily.

Regards,
Stu

(Why write a quick note when you can write a novel?)

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒE

יזכר לא עד פעם

Brian D.
Posts: 1970
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 9:07 pm
Location: SW Ohio

Re: How concealed is "concealed"

Post by Brian D. » Thu Feb 26, 2015 8:44 am

45PocketPistol wrote:How much of the gun must be concealed for it to be legally "concealed"? If you can see the very end of the grip, is it "open"? I've never heard anyone ask about this, but it seems to be an obvious question. I mean, if someone doesn't have a CHL, they could carry "barely-open", right? I think there would be a market for "barely-open" holsters.
Without having a CHL here in Ohio, it would not be a good idea to see how far the "barely open" envelope could be pushed. There was a case up Cleveland way not that many years ago where the cops arrested a guy for carrying a full sized handgun in a military "flap" type holster. Personally I think the charges could have been completely blown away with very competent legal counsel but the arrestee ended up cutting a deal that was not very satisfactory to those of us watching from a distance.

You saw all those cases posted by color of law, did the totality of them give you a clear distinction of where this legal boundary is, exactly? It's never been clear as a bell for any of us, really. Trial lawyers gotta eat at five star restaurants and make expensive purchases for their mistresses like any other overpriced profession, you know.
"I have decided not to vote, speak in public, assemble in groups or petition my government either directly or by writing to the newspapers.

Some ignorant person may become alarmed, and we can't have that.''

--CAR15A2, 3/31/09

color of law
Posts: 2722
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 10:45 am
Location: Too close to Cincinnati

Re: How concealed is "concealed"

Post by color of law » Thu Feb 26, 2015 1:01 pm

Brian D.. Don't get me started.

State v. Coker (1984), 15 Ohio App. 3d 97, 98, 472 N.E.2d 747
It is not necessary to prove that the shotgun was carried in such manner or in such location as to give absolutely no notice of its presence under any kind of observation. Rather, it is sufficient to support a conviction of carrying a concealed weapon to prove only that ordinary observation would give no notice of its presence. This is a question of fact to be resolved by the trier of fact. There must be an evidentiary basis established by the proof upon which the jury could find that the weapon was concealed.
Meaning it is a "subjective" standard versus an "objective" standard."Subjective" standard is personal opinions, assumptions, interpretations and beliefs. And based on the courts the cops are always truthful and never lie even though 100 witnesses contradict every word the cop claimed to be true. The court will consider the witnesses as nothing more than liars thieves and scoundrels.

JMHO

LarryG
Posts: 154
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 12:15 pm
Location: Dayton

Re: How concealed is "concealed"

Post by LarryG » Fri Feb 27, 2015 1:54 pm

45 I see from another post that you have carried for 3 years. If you are asking about transitional states that does not matter in Ohio as long as you have a CHL. I open carry most of the time but partiality or fully covered is a non issue

Kev4571
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2013 6:56 pm

Re: How concealed is "concealed"

Post by Kev4571 » Mon Mar 02, 2015 1:36 pm

State v. Bruening, 2007-Ohio-6982
A weapon is concealed if it is situated so that ordinary observation would give no notice of its presence.

IDK about where you all live... but around here, "ordinary observation" would require you to hold the gun within 6 inches of the persons face. Otherwise, they would never see it. People don't pay attention and many, in my area, don't care. I have friends that open carry and say they don't think people even see the gun. Therefore, we must all be carrying concealed. :roll:

color of law
Posts: 2722
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 10:45 am
Location: Too close to Cincinnati

Re: How concealed is "concealed"

Post by color of law » Tue Mar 03, 2015 11:43 am

Kev4571 wrote:State v. Bruening, 2007-Ohio-6982
A weapon is concealed if it is situated so that ordinary observation would give no notice of its presence.

IDK about where you all live... but around here, "ordinary observation" would require you to hold the gun within 6 inches of the persons face. Otherwise, they would never see it. People don't pay attention and many, in my area, don't care. I have friends that open carry and say they don't think people even see the gun. Therefore, we must all be carrying concealed. :roll:
How did you come to that conclusion? That is not what the case said. "Ordinary observation" means that if I walked around you scanning your dress and I see no presence of a gun and you have a gun on your person than that gun would be concealed. You don't get to turn a blind eye and claim it wasn't visible when it was.
Last edited by color of law on Wed Mar 04, 2015 5:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
schmieg
Posts: 868
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2008 12:15 am
Location: Madeira, Ohio

Re: How concealed is "concealed"

Post by schmieg » Wed Mar 04, 2015 1:10 am

color of law wrote:
Kev4571 wrote:State v. Bruening, 2007-Ohio-6982
A weapon is concealed if it is situated so that ordinary observation would give no notice of its presence.

IDK about where you all live... but around here, "ordinary observation" would require you to hold the gun within 6 inches of the persons face. Otherwise, they would never see it. People don't pay attention and many, in my area, don't care. I have friends that open carry and say they don't think people even see the gun. Therefore, we must all be carrying concealed. :roll:
How did you come to that conclusion? That is not what the case said. "Ordinary observation" means that if I walked around you scanning you dress and I see no presence of a gun and you have a gun on your person than that gun would be concealed. You don't get to turn a blind eye and claim it wasn't visible when it was.
I don't think he's disputing that. He's saying that most people are clueless and wouldn't notice if you are carrying a Ruger Super Redhawk .454 with a 7-1/2" barrel while wearing only a pair of speedos.
-- Mike

User avatar
SMMAssociates
Site Admin
Posts: 6726
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2007 11:01 pm
Location: Youngstown OH

Re: How concealed is "concealed"

Post by SMMAssociates » Wed Mar 04, 2015 2:13 am

schmieg wrote: I don't think he's disputing that. He's saying that most people are clueless and wouldn't notice if you are carrying a Ruger Super Redhawk .454 with a 7-1/2" barrel while wearing only a pair of speedos.
Mike:

I think that would be noticed :D....

But....

There are people who still might not....

Some 50 years ago, one of the PD's around here had problems with people crashing into their Traffic units while doing accident investigations, etc. Basically, they just didn't notice the blinking lights.

Somebody got the bright idea of using a station wagon for this, and put a quad-sealed-beam light assembly on each corner of the wagon's roof. Until recently, those were the brightest and most noticeable lights you could put on a vehicle - basically four 5" headlamps on a rotating disc - until the advent of inexpensive strobes and LEDs.

Really visible car, but, naturally, within a few weeks, somebody hit the station wagon.... "Lights? What lights?"....

Back in 1975, the wife and I stopped at a sort of hardware store in southern SC. Guy behind the counter in bib overalls with an HT on his belt and a hawgleg of some kind. (He was the Town Constable or something like that.) My wife noticed nothing....

I'm still not a great believer in OC, but accidental exposure should not be a good way to go to jail, and I don't think most people would notice.

Regards,
Stu

(Why write a quick note when you can write a novel?)

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒE

יזכר לא עד פעם

User avatar
AlanM
Posts: 2431
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 10:02 am
Location: Was Stow, OH now Charlottesville, VA

Re: How concealed is "concealed"

Post by AlanM » Wed Mar 04, 2015 7:09 am

I guess it all depends where you are.
I used to open carry nearly everywhere I went the last 5 years I lived in Stow and pretty much never got a comment about it.
Now, here in Virginia, I open carry my 1911 on my right hip everywhere I go, including my doctor's office, and get a comment or reaction about once a quarter. Usually a compliment either regarding the gun or a thank you for carrying.
Magicians have been counting on the fact that people don't see what they don't expect to see for thousands of years.
AlanM
There are no dangerous weapons; there are only dangerous men. - RAH
Four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo - use in that order.
If you aren't part of the solution, then you obviously weren't properly dissolved.

User avatar
schmieg
Posts: 868
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2008 12:15 am
Location: Madeira, Ohio

Re: How concealed is "concealed"

Post by schmieg » Wed Mar 04, 2015 1:36 pm

Well, I will say that I have often noticed open carriers, but I don't say anything or react because I don't see it as a problem, nor do I think it should be out of the ordinary. Maybe there are more people around like me than I think, but I really doubt it.
-- Mike

color of law
Posts: 2722
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 10:45 am
Location: Too close to Cincinnati

Re: How concealed is "concealed"

Post by color of law » Wed Mar 04, 2015 5:36 pm

schmieg wrote:Well, I will say that I have often noticed open carriers, but I don't say anything or react because I don't see it as a problem, nor do I think it should be out of the ordinary. Maybe there are more people around like me than I think, but I really doubt it.
Schmieg, you know and everyone else knows you are one of a kind. :)

Post Reply